- (1.) This appeal is brought by certificate against the judgment and decree of the Rajasthan High Court, dated January 29, 1963.
(2.) The appellant firm Bansidhar Premsukhdas brought a suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal against the State of Rajasthan on March 31, 1953 for the recovery of Rs. 86,646-3-0 in the Court of District Judge, Bharatpur. The case of the appellant was that the former State of Bharatpur with a view to increase the trade and commerce in the said State decided to establish a Mandi at Bharatpur where at the material time a T. B. Hospital was located. It decided to sell plots for certain fixed amounts and, therefore, issued a notification on May 18, 1948 offering the plots by public advertisement for sale on certain terms and conditions. The notification-Ex. 4-was published in Bharatpur Rajpatra and one of the concessions proposed to be granted was embodied in Cl. 3 of the notification which stated : "If any commodity is imported from outside into the Mandi and is sold for consumption within the State, or if any commodity received in the Mandi from within the State and is exported in both cases, a reduction of 25 per cent in the customs duty prevailing at the time of the import and export of such commodities will be allowed. This concession shall not be available in case of vegetable Ghee." The notification contained other terms and conditions relating to auction sale such as the prices for different kinds of plots available and the maximum number of plots which a person could purchase. A committee for supervising the auction was also formed and the notification laid down the procedure for the sale of plots and certain other conditions such as deposit of one-fourth sale money at the time of auction, etc. The appellant purchased plots Nos. 8 and 9 for Rs. 4,600 at a public auction and two sale-deeds (sanad nilam) were issued to the appellant on October 10 1946. The Government of Bharatpur and after its merger, the Government of United State of Matsya and thereafter the present Rajasthan State carried out the promise contained in Cl. 3 of the Bharatpur notification and allowed reduction of 25 per cent in the customs duty, but on January 16, 1951 the Rajasthan Government issued notification No. F. 4 (18) SR/49 which reads as follows : "Now, therefore, Government of Rajasthan is hereby pleased to direct that with an immediate effect all free Mandies and Zones including the area comprising the former Kishangarh State and the Bhim District of the former Rajasthan State shall be abolished and that in consequence all the Customs concession hitherto enjoyed by or applicable to these Mandies or Zones shall cease to have force and duties of customs shall be levied and collected in such Mandies or Zones in accordance with the revised tariff amended from time to time." The appellant and other traders thereupon made representation to the Rajasthan Government on January 29, 1951 and pending the disposal of the representation the Customs authorities agreed to keep the amount of 25 per cent by way of 'Amanat'. The State of Rajasthan ultimately decided on May 25, 1951 that the reduction in the customs duty could not be conceded. On March 31, 1953 the appellant filed the present suit in the Court of the District Judge of Bharatpur for the recovery of the excess amount of customs duty paid to the Rajasthan Government. The main defence of the State Government was that item No. 3 of the Bharatpur notification was a matter of concession and could not be claimed as of right and the Rajasthan State as successor State was not bound by the contracts of the former State and the applicability of the concessions had also become impracticable on the formation of Rajasthan. The District Judge of Bharatpur, by his judgment, dated March 31, 1956, held that item No. 3 of Bharatpur notification was a term of sale between the parties and the Rajasthan State was bound by it and the succeeding States have recognised the concessions granted to the appellant and, therefore, the suit of the appellant should be decreed. The State of Rajasthan took the matter in appeal to the Rajasthan High Court which allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that item No. 3 of the Bharatpur notification was not a part of the contract of sale, and even if it was held to be a part of the contract, the successor State of Rajasthan did not recognise it and was not, therefore, bound by it.
(3.) The first question involved in this appeal is whether Cl. 3 of the Bharatpur notification-Ex. 4 was a term of the contract of sale between the appellant and the State of Bharatpur. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that Ex. 4 which is the notification, dated May 18, 1946 regarding the sale of plots by the Bharatpur State was an offer of purchase of plots on terms and conditions made in that notification. It was contended that the offer was made to the public as a whole and after it was accepted by the appellant a valid contract came into existence. The opposite view-point was presented on behalf of the respondent. It was submitted that the concession granted in C1. 3 did not relate to nor did it form a part of the contract of sale of the plots of the Mandi. It was pointed out that the concession of 25 per cent reduction in customs duty will not merely enure to the benefit of the purchaser of the plots but also enure to the benefit of the person trading in the shop. The benefits were generally offered for trade and business in the Mandi and cannot be considered as an offer of benefit only to, the prospective purchasers of the plots. The commodities for which the concession was granted might be in the hands of purchasers and builders of plots, their tenants and licensees or other dealers. It was, therefore, not possible to hold that the State Government offered the tax concessions as a reciprocal promise in connection with the contracts of sale with the appellant and the latter had no justification for treating the benefits offered as consideration in return for the purchase of the plots and the construction of shop buildings. It is also pointed out by learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent that there are certain conditions in the Bharatpur notification - Ex. 4 which cannot, in the nature of things, be treated as terms of the sale. Reference was made, in this connection, to Cls. ,5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. In our opinion, there is much force in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent but it is not necessary to express any concluded opinion on this aspect of the case. We shall assume in favour of the appellant that Cl. 3 of the Bharatpur notification, Ex. 4 was a term of the contract of sale of plots 8 and 9 of the Mandi. Even upon that assumption the suit of the appellant must fail, for we shall presently show that there was no recognition of the contractual right by the succeeding State of Rajasthan, and in the absence of such recognition the contract between the former State of Bharatpur and the appellant cannot be legally enforced.;